An Ugly Game of Chicken
SeeDub has laid out the best possible case for McCain to “come to Jesus” (not in the Huckabee sense) on amesty, McCain-Feingold, and all the other anathema positions he’s taken. Read it all because it’s a model of clarity, but summarized, it’s like this: 1) McCain will do what he must to win the war. Hillary or Obama will do what they must to end our involvement in the war, however ignominiously. 2) McCain needs the conservative base in order to get elected. 3) Therefore McCain should recant a few of his nastier positions and jettison a few of his rabid amesty supporters in order to get our support, win the election, and win the war.
As I said in SeeDub’s comments, McCain should read the post, but there are a couple things wrong with it. 1) It assumes McCain doesn’t need only partial support of the conservative base to win. Out of three Democrats I know personally, one says he will still vote for Hillary if it’s Clinton v. McCain; the second says “probably Hillary” but it’s a harder call and she’s somewhat on the fence (interestingly, she cited McCain’s intention to make permanent the Bush tax cuts and Hillary’s Bill-shaped baggage, both as disincentives for each, but never mentioned the war at all). The third said he would vote for McCain. That’s 1.5 out of three Democrats, an unrepresentative sample to be sure, but the best I can do out of my limited Democrat acquaintance. How much conservative support does McCain actually need? Coulter says that given a choice between the Democrat and a Democrat, Democrats will always vote for the Democrat, and in the main I agree with her (a fourth Democrat of my acquaintance, not asked about the 2008 scenario, has said that he would have considered voting McCain in an earlier election had the choice been available. Considered being the most viable word, I think, and I do suspect that my friend #2 will vote Hillary when push comes to shove), but a significant number will most likely break the other way. How many? is the question.
2) SeeDub is saying that to continue to be an honorable war hero, McCain must consider that winning the election by meeting conservatives partway is just as much his duty as winning the war after election. But if we count on McCain to see it that way, then we ourselves are saying we’d rather lose the war than vote McCain. Not honorable in the least. I know that it’s not time to have to make such a declaration yet, that it won’t be time until November, that SeeDub advocates not saying which way we’ll break until McCain makes a few moves himself–which is still very good advice. But I’m a basically transparent girl, sometimes too honest for my own good, I’ve been told, so I can’t help pointing out, even at risk (if too many people write and speak as I am now) of making McCain think himself secure without cutting right on at least a few issues, that this scenario makes an issue of only McCain’s honor, not ours. Think about your own while you’re counting on McCain to save his, is all I’m saying.
It’s unfortunate that this election looks likely to come down to a very ugly game of chicken. McCain can stop it with a few steps towards the blank space between his positions (and his insults, which he can stuff in his and his staff’s ears, frankly) and those of many conservatives. I hope we can count on him to start walkin’.
27 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
My John Edwards-supporting spouse has said if it’s McCain-Clinton, she’s voting for McCain. Many of the reasons she likes him are the reasons conservatives don’t.
If he’s genuinely likable enough to moderate Democrats because of his positions, he may not need to move very far, if at all, to contend in November.
Comment by Gib — February 11, 2008 @ 6:01 am
Slublog is probably a Mitt supporter who is used to his candidate changing his basic moral beliefs in order to pander to a select group of voters. Mitt had a chameleon-like ability to be all things to all people.
McCain is going to get nominated with his present, very fair policy stand on immigrants (with which I happen to agree).
Conservatives didn’t back him, now they expect him to change his policy to one more to their liking? Where is the logic in that? I guess its just they want McCain to be more like Mitt, as in having no real core values or stands, so its easy to shrug off any past policies like a snake sheds its skin.
Unfortunately for them, McCain actually has character and honor.
You know what, fuck “conservatives”, or more accurately, nativists, the Rush/Hannity/Malkin wing of the party (read, people who don’t want dirty fucking Mexicans to emigrate to the US).
McCain appeals to conservative Democrats and independent, as well as a majority of Republicans (read a poll today that claimed 69% of those calling themselves CONSERVATIVE Republicans found McCain acceptable) precisely because he DOESN’T appeal to nativists. That’s why he is running 44%-47% vs. Obama and 48%-44% over Clinton, even after 8 years of Republican President fatigue. Last poll I saw had Romney down 37% behind Clinton and 40+% behind Obama.
The only ones who still seem dissatisfied are the anti-immigrationalists, and that’s especially rich seeing as their hero Mitt only had to defend the Massachusetts/Mexican border and has zero track record on immigration, but hey, he said the right things.
So now your advice is for McCain to adopt Mitten’s policies? Yeah, because they worked so well for him.
The most hilarious thing about this entire nomination process has the the gullible acceptance by conservatives of Mitt Romney’s supposed “conversion to conservatism” after running as a leftist Republican as the Governor of Mass (pro-abortion, supported socialized medicine, tax and spender, anti-gun, pro-big government, pro-gay rights), then running for Kennedy’s senate seat as basically a younger, slightly more moderate version of Teddy, about 40 shades of blue more liberal than McCain at his most maverick-y.
Then only 2 years ago he renounces all that and moves right because it the moderate area of the field seemed to crowded with Guiliani and McCain. Had there been all conservative candidates, I’m sure Mitt would have run as the most moderate and most electable. That guy can turn on a dime, I’ll give him that.
Really, all politicians are irritating, but Romney sits right up there with the master, the inimitable Bill Clinton, for being the epitome a handsome, well-tailored, polished, slick, insincere but earnest and well-spoken package of rehearsed spontaneity, their perfect public demeanor and presentation in personal appearances marred only by the fact that if you look closely, you can see that they are both covered with a thin coat of slime.
Comment by docweasel — February 11, 2008 @ 6:10 am
dammit that’s long enough for a post.
oh well, feel free to delete it when you get the trackback ;)
Comment by docweasel — February 11, 2008 @ 6:14 am
Failed candidate Romney supporters offer their patented losing advice to McCain…
Amwyn has some thoughts on advice given by Slublog) on what McCain should do now to appease the people who rejected him and are still whining about the fact they didn’t get a chance to go down in glorious flames with a guy who consistently ran 4…
Trackback by docweaselblog — February 11, 2008 @ 7:14 am
That’s Junkyardblog, not me.
And I was a Thompson supporter who went to Romney and am willing to support McCain in the primary, but am growing rather tired of being lectured to by his supporters.
Comment by Slublog — February 11, 2008 @ 7:38 am
Oh crap, misread SeeDub as Slublog I guess
corrected
and I’m not lecturing you Romneyites, I’m _taunting_ you
Comment by docweasel — February 11, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Actually, docweasel, the major thing conservatives want from McCain is for him and his staff and his supporters to stop denouncing those of us who prefer the rule of law to prevail over illegal immigration as “nativists who don’t want dirty f*#$*&* Mexicans to emigrate to the US.”
Didn’t know that you fell into that camp, but now that I do, feel free to stop referring to me and a lot of my blogfriends as the above, especially when you’re here. Or else, frankly, feel free to find a different blog to hang out at where others will join you in the insult and you can giggle about it there.
Comment by Anwyn — February 11, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Wait…I’m a nativist?
Can I get free tuition for that?
Comment by Slublog — February 11, 2008 @ 10:10 am
The irony is that Docweasel, busy slurring everyone who supports border security as a racist, is himself a horrendous bigot against Mormons. Hence his hatred of Romney and his taunting of his supporters.
Comment by See-Dubya — February 11, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Its indisputable that a lot of the ‘nativist’ arguments against immigrants are not merely targeted against illegals, they are also targeted at limiting Mexican immigration. They do so in very offensive and abusive language. I detect a STRONG bias against Mexicans in many of the anti-immigrant screeds.
Perhaps its because I’m a 2nd generation American, yes, I do fall in the camp of those who feel immigration should be made more open, more fair, as cheap and timely as possible for almost anyone who wishes to become an American. I am against putting conditions of “assimilation” on citizenship, other than an understanding of and adherence to US statutes. No immigrant group has ever before been forced to abandon their culture and language as a condition of immigration, but the yahoo Malkanites/Dittohead/Freeper knuckle-draggers seem to take it upon themselves to demand it.
Reality check to them: Anglo culture is not the end of evolution.
Opposing the right of _any_ noncriminal immigrant to come to this country is, in my opinion, extremely UN American, in that almost every one of us is here due to immigration.
A lot of the immigration debate is not about securing the borders or denying amnesty (which I support, sorry if that bothers you) is more about limiting Mexican immigration, on the basis that it will “change our culture” or berating them for “failing to assimilate”. I’m fond of saying that history is on the side of the immigrants, and the nativists better learn to be more tolerant, because its THEM who are going to get assimilated. I’ve never totally assimilated myself and my grandparents never spoke more than broken English.
For the record, although I consider myself a fiscally and foreign policy conservative, I support gay rights, including the right to marry (never have heard an intelligent, coherent argument against it), I have a big problem with criminalizing abortion, and I detest the “Religious Right” and “values voters” who would legislate morality, censor TV and movies and video games or the internet.
I never said you fit the nativist or that subtly racist camp, but some of your commentors do and I was directing toward them. If you don’t want opposing opinions on your blog, I can respect that. I won’t comment anymore. I hope you don’t mind if I read.
Comment by docweasel — February 11, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
[Anwyn’s note: Inserting buffer for leading blockquote.]
I’ve seen some of that as well, and I find it disagreeable since my great-grandfather was an immigrant from Mexico.
My preference on this issue, however, is that our borders do need stronger policing because illegal immigration is putting a strain on social and government services in the United States. We simply cannot afford to take care of our own citizens and those of another country who are not yet citizens, and have little intention of becoming citizens.
As for the issue of assimilation, I have seen almost no one suggest that Mexicans give up their culture. What has been suggested is that those who come to this country realize that here, individual culture is and should be subordinate to American ideals.
Comment by Slublog — February 11, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Buffer for leading blockquote.
Okay. But not here. Links would be helpful, too, before you start accusing “Rush/Hannity/Malkin” or Slublog or SeeDub. Or me. Because when you say “fuck conservatives” who want the border sealed and do not want illegal immigrants rewarded, you’re including me. And I don’t like it.
Surprise! So do I! But that is a separate issue from what to do about the illegal immigrants already here or whether/how to prevent more people from coming here illegally. I’m far more sympathetic to the idea that people who don’t want LEGAL immigration made much easier and welcoming might have a tinge of racism/nativism about them, but that’s not what we’re talking about here, vis a vis McCain, it’s amesty and securing the border from more illegals and unknowns and uncheckeds.
Uh, I do not oppose the right of any noncriminal immigrant to come here. Entering and living and working here illegally, however, by definition makes them criminal. And there, I suspect, is where you and I diverge. But that doesn’t make me a racist or a nativist.
Link it. Specifically, that stuff isn’t said here. So when you come barelling in here with your “fuck you,” how do you think that played to me?
In no way do I object to opposing opinions on my blog. I object to insults impugning the motives of me or commenters who prefer immigration to take place legally and in good order. The fact that it isn’t currently easier isn’t a good excuse. And the fact that others may have racist-sounding arguments isn’t a good excuse for you to insult me or anybody else here.
And you notice I didn’t threaten to prevent you from speaking here. Just said I’d prefer you didn’t speak like that here.
Comment by Anwyn — February 11, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
[Anwyn’s note: Inserting buffer for leading blockquote>]
I feel a chill wind…
Comment by Tim "Slublog" Robbins — February 11, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Then put on a sweater and be more polite. Ill temper and profanity becomes no-one.
Comment by Garter Knight — February 11, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Knight, that’s Slublog joking about chill wind a la Robbins. Docweasel is my erstwhile opponent atm.
Comment by Anwyn — February 11, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Well, like my wife says, “Sweetie, you really don’t know what’s going on.”
Comment by Garter Knight — February 11, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
I don’t know why I have to repeat it again, but as I said, I wasn’t accusing you personally. I referenced “nativists”, and there are plenty throughout the rightblogs, I mentioned Malkin in particular – if you aren’t one, why are you taking such umbrage upon yourself (with Slublog piping in because I mis-attributed a post on a completely different subject to him, which I apologized for and corrected)?
I mean on various anti-immigration, anti Hispanic rightblogs around the net. Here’s a small example of the particularly offensive slurs against Mexicans, this one posted on a supposedly reputable blog, Townhall, the flagship of anti-Mexican fervor:
http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/d4cd6244-fe0a-498b-9330-557c72df0dba
A little googling can recover 100’s more. Are you really denying there’s any out there? I specifically stated I wasn’t accusing you, yet you (and Slublog, who I also didn’t mention as a nativist) both pipe up in high dudgeon at the notion any criticism of anti-immigrationalists infers you are guilty of the sins of every other nativist. Its demonstrably true that plenty of nativists _are_ xenophobic and back limiting even legal Mexican immigration. If that doesn’t refer to you, fine. I’m talking about the trend at large, and it also seems to follow Romney backers since he decided to adopt a hardline pose against immigrants as part of his 2 year transformation to a hard right republican.
I find all the Romney backers are very touchy and moody these days, so I apologize for all my shortcomings and I’ll lay off posting on your comments at all until you mellow out a bit and quit taking everything to mean you personally, even when I state clearly that it is not. Sheesh.
I don’t apologize for the “fuck conservatives” remark. The one-issue anti-immigrationalists have a lot of nerve expecting ANYTHING from McCain when they exhibit virulent hatred toward him, even a week after Romney has dropped out, even making the risible claim, aping Coulter and Rush, that McCain is exactly the same as electing a Democrat.
Obviously, they are not a large enough bloc to even give their preferred choice a shot at the nomination, with all his financial advantages, let alone dictate his platform. You won’t find McCain as flexible with his core beliefs as Romney was. Romney was the Gumby of politics.
Independent votes McCain picks up, plus Democrats who either don’t like Hillary, or Hispanics responding to Bush and McCain’s outreach and distrust of Obama, will far outweigh the grumpy old “conservatives” who threaten to sit home pouting and muttering to themselves on election day.
Moving to the right is a recipe for failure, just ask Romney, it didn’t do him much good.
Hard right conservatives are in a foul mood lately because they are waking up to the fact they are largely irrelevant and impotent in the party because they make extreme demands that over-estimate their power and numbers to deliver. No one likes events and history passing them by. There will be an immigration reform bill, probably next session, and they won’t like it.
And, IMHO they are unnecessary to win the election and are in fact detrimental to the party as the far left fringe is to the Democrats, and about as perpetually pissed off and bitchy as the KosKids are on the left as well.
They alienate independents and moderates who are the Republicans only hope to out-weigh the 8 year Bush fatigue disadvantage. Its almost as if McCain is happy to be shed of the extremists, because it gives him more credibility with moderates.
Comment by docweasel — February 11, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
“The only ones who still seem dissatisfied are the anti-immigrationalists”
No, dude, I’m anti-ILLEGAL-immigration, and YES, I am still dissatisfied with McCain. And I’m not the only one. And for you to go on claiming that the only people dissatisfied with McCain are racist assholes is pretty damn close to calling me and others here names. He and his supporters are not as damn careful about separating the one from the other as you say you were trying to be, and by the way, if it wasn’t me or Slu you were referring to, then exactly which one(s) of my commenters *was* it? (“but some of your commenters do” …and then you backtrack, saying it wasn’t at me or at anybody here.)
We’ve talked a bit and I appreciate your comments here in general. You’re right that I flared up over the original “f— conservatives” without noticing that you then said “nativists” … but come on, you were not making nearly such a separation between the two as you now say.
Comment by Anwyn — February 11, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
And OMFG, I am not that much of a “Romney backer” given that I converted to his cause from Thompson’s lost one about … a week and a half ago. Lay off the Romney BS, okay? This is about McCain and illegal immigration. Romney has not a blessed thing to do with it any more.
Comment by Anwyn — February 11, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
But Anwyn, you supported the MORMON DEBBIL and now docweasel must punish you.
Comment by see-dubya — February 11, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
[Anwyn’s note: Inserting buffer for leading blockquote>]
Which gets to the heart of conservative discontent with McCain – what you see as an admirable trait, many of us see as a bull-headed, vain stubbornness and refusal to back down on bad policy decisions. Inflexibility in the pursuit of bad policy is no virtue, and a willingness to admit you might not have all the answers is no vice.
There is a self-righteous streak that seems to fuel many of McCain’s decisions and it’s evident in how he treats his political opponents, both in the Senate and on the campaign trail. There’s no reason for such ugliness in politics, and I have little patience for politicians who seem to revel in it as much as McCain does. Personally, I would never dream of saying “f**k you” to someone I disagree with on policy during a discussion. Why make things so uncivil?
McCain supporters seem to feel that his Maverick tendencies are going to attract large numbers of independents and Democrats discontent with the Clintons. Unfortunately for McCain, it doesn’t seem Clinton is going to be the nominee at this point. If it’s Obama, then you can kiss those independent voters and Democrats good-bye and prepare yourself for a shellacking of Mondale proportions.
In addition, McCain’s temperament will arise as an issue during this election. In that case, say good-bye to female voters and more independents. As for the Latino vote, I think you’ll find more of them are anti-war than pro-immigration and that will determine their vote in the fall.
What was that about not needing conservatives again?
Comment by Slublog — February 12, 2008 @ 7:29 am
Slublog your assessment is based solely on subjective conjecture. The FACT is that McCain is basically tied with both Hillary and Obama in the polls,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Obama up 3.7%, well within the MOE.
which is pretty good considering the discontent with Republicans in general following the war, Katrina, a slowing economy, a very unpopular Republican president, 8 years of Republican rule, voters like to change parties usually after 2 terms etc.
The Dems have a lot of problems with internal divisions right now, as much or more than Republicans. Unless they field a unity ticket of both Clinton and Obama they are going to have real problems with Democrats supporting one or the other candidate.
McCain hasn’t suddenly developed these traits you see as negative. He’s had them his entire career. Yet he handily won the nomination, even though he was almost broke this summer and had very little money going into the primaries (while Romney spent about a million dollars per delegate won) and is in good shape with the general public, with very high positives and approval ratings and tied with both Dems in the polls. And Republicans haven’t even started attacking Obama yet, no one has. That guy has no where to go but down.
All your drivel about ‘no need for such ugliness’ is baloney. For one, I haven’t seen where McCain has played anyone dirty. Romney was the one push-polling about Mormonism to make it look like someone else’s dirty tricks. McCain remains on cordial terms with Huckabee, and both Romney and Thompson endorsed him. Not bad for such an “ugly” campaigner.
I say “fuck you” not because I disagree with the whingers politics, but because they are full of shit. Their complaints about McCain are ridiculous considering their hero, Romney, only became a conservative less than 2 years ago.
You guys don’t like McCain personally, as your comments show, not because he’s not a conservative, which its objectively possible to show he in fact IS, as much or more than any other candidate. So instead of making a rational business and political decision, you’re basing it on the fact you don’t like McCain. Well, most Republicans DO like him, and a helluva lot of Democrats and independents do too.
Are you really that clueless about politics you seriously think ROMNEY or Huckabee or Thompson would do better in the general election than McCain? If so, you need to educate yourself. Romney runs constantly 30-40 points behind Obama and Hillary. McCain is tied within margin of error.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
You are trying to say that McCain, a professional politician of many years standing, who has run in the presidential before, is going to implode and destroy his own campaign. Unlikely. Where the heck do you justify a “Mondale-like” landslide for the Dems? Further, where do you justify nominating any of the last remaining candidates because they would do better?
McCain is the Republican’s best chance in this very bad environment for the GOP. I don’t find the so-called “conservatives” objections to McCain compelling. They seem like sore losers pissed off that their candidate didn’t win, they feel their pet issues weren’t addressed, they can’t accept there is not enough support in the party to nominate someone who will stroke them and their pet issues, so they are trying to torpedo McCain and the party’s chances to win in a fit of pique. So yeah, fuck them.
If they are willing to hand over the presidency to the Dems to “punish” the party for dissing them, they aren’t conservatives at all, they do not have the country’s best interest in mind, they certainly don’t have the party’s best interest in mind, they have a selfish grudge to nurse and I have no patience with that. Its childish.
Comment by docweasel — February 12, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Docweasel, FYI I don’t know why your comments constantly get kicked to moderation. Either because they have links (likely) or something else. I didn’t set up a filter just for you or anything like that.
I don’t have time to get into this right now, so I’ll be back later, but a couple of thoughts: No, it’s not about how I may or may not feel about McCain personally, and also, once again, you are punishing us here for views expressed elsewhere. I do not advocate handing the election to the Dems through a refusal to vote for McCain. That’s not in the best interest of the country. But when you say “the best interest of the party,” then I’m not sure I agree with you. I think the best interest of the party is to tack back to the right on some of these things. If I didn’t think that I wouldn’t be a right-leaning conservative. *shrug*
Comment by Anwyn — February 12, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
You know, docweasel, I’m tired of your profanity and your insults so I’m really not all that interested in further discussion. I’ve tried to be civil and limit my comments to the candidates, and not cast aspersions on their supporters. Your unwillingness to do the same is unfortunate.
Comment by Slublog — February 12, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
blah blah blah
“You’re being so mean I won’t talk to you anymore”
More whinging from anti-McCainiacs. I directly addressed what you said in the last comment, “Slublog”, you did attack McCain not on substance, but because you see him as a grouchy old man. Does that not show you dislike him personally?
And god help us, profanity used on the internets! Slublogs virgin ears!
Anwyn, I was not addressing anything you said in my last comment, it was a direct response to Slublog assertation that McCain is an undisciplined old coot who has such a violent temper, he’s going to blow up and destroy his campaign. He also claimed McCain had run a very ugly campaign, which seems not to have bothered any of the ex-candidates, since every one but Ron Paul has endorsed him (Huckabee has all but endorsed McCain, and probably will this week, they remain very cordial).
I didn’t plan on commenting again but you keep responding so I rebut your comments. I realize when your out of ammo its best to fold your tent and retire.
Back to reality and facts, Huckabee won 70% of conservatives in VA and lost the state by 9%. My theory that self-described “conservatives” are irrelevant. Sit home if you like, McCain will win without you, and maybe because you don’t like him.
Limbaugh was postulating that just today, that his continued attacks on McCain shored up McCain’s moderate bona fides, and there could be a case made that Rush is doing it on purpose because he secretly supports McCain. Pretty ingenious way of having it both ways, Rush!
Comment by docweasel — February 13, 2008 @ 2:51 am
[Anwyn’s note: Inserting buffer for leading blockquote.]
Yes, you win.
Go you.
Comment by Slublog — February 13, 2008 @ 4:35 am
Docweasel, you’re being a jerk.
And wouldn’t that be nice if only the Republican half of the country voted in November.
Once again you are trying to refute other people who aren’t here. Nobody here is talking about sitting home. We’re talking about being upset that McCain looks to be the Republican option.
Honestly, if you can’t stop foaming at the mouth about what people are saying elsewhere in the internet, maybe you should go to other places where they actually are saying those things rather than spew about them here and not address what we actually are saying. I realize it’s because there’s not much to address–you like amesty; we don’t. The conversation pretty much ends there, except that you brought in all these other straw men that other people maybe are saying but we aren’t. Go find people who are actually saying that Mexican immigration should be curbed, that they think McCain would be a worse president than Obama, that they will stay home rather than vote for McCain and beat them up. Go. Shoo. They’re easy to find. Run along.
Comment by Anwyn — February 13, 2008 @ 8:39 am